Ex Parte Shevock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2014

11855497 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/855,497 09/14/2007 Bryan Shevock 81160757 6971
28395 7590 03/25/2014
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
O DONNELL, LUCAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2014 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRYAN SHEVOCK
and PATRICK DANIEL MAGUIRE
____________

Appeal 2012-011143
Application 11/855,497
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-17 and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.1
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system for electrically
connecting modules of a vehicle power storage unit wherein the module

1 Claims 18-20 have been cancelled. (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2012-011143
Application 11/855,497

2
has a spring loaded clip terminal. (App. Br. 2) Claim 1 is illustrative of
the subject matter on appeal:
1. A system for electrically connecting modules of a vehicle
power storage unit, the system comprising:
an electrical bus;
a module having a spring loaded clip terminal and an
electrochemical cell wherein the spring loaded clip terminal is
electrically connected with the electrochemical cell and wherein
the spring loaded clip terminal is configured to receive and
retain a portion of the electrical bus;
and
an additional module having an additional spring loaded clip
terminal and an additional electrochemical cell wherein the
additional spring loaded clip terminal is electrically connected
with the additional electrochemical cell and wherein the
additional spring loaded clip terminal is configured to receive
and retain another portion of the electrical bus.

Appellants (App. Br. 3) request review of the following rejections:
Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 21 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Winch (US 6,391,489 B1), Pavlovic (US
7,175,488 B2), and Asaka (US Pat. Pub. 2002/0022178 A1).
Claim 9 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Winch, Pavlovic, Asaka, and Kaye (US 4,186,983).
OPINION
The dispositive issue is: Did the Examiner err in determining that
Winch, Pavlovic, and Asaka would have suggested forming a system for
electrically connecting modules for a vehicle power storage unit wherein
Appeal 2012-011143
Application 11/855,497

3
the module has a spring loaded clip terminal as required by the subject
matter of claim 1?2
After review of the Examiner’s rejection3 and Appellants’
arguments, we sustain the rejections for the reasons presented by the
Examiner. We add the following.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness because the Examiner has done nothing more than
assert that the claimed invention is within the capabilities of one of
ordinary skill in the art. (App. Br. 3). Appellants argue the Examiner’s
asserted reason for modifying Winch does nothing to answer the question
as to whether the claimed invention is obvious in light of the references.
(Id.at 4). Appellants also argue Winch’s terminal jumper clip 20 already
appears to provide an electrical connection that cannot be inadvertently
disconnected because of the spring retention force of the clip; one of
ordinary skill, therefore, would not have had reason to modify Winch as
suggested by the Examiner to accomplish what Winch already provides.
(Id.).
Evidence of a suggestion, teaching or motivation to combine may
flow from the references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved. See Pro-
Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed.

2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. Appellants have limited
their arguments to claim 1 and have not presented substantive arguments
addressing the subject matter of dependent claims 2-8, 10-17, and 21 or
separately rejected claim 9.
3 The Examiner's statement of rejection appears on pages 5-8 of the
Answer.
Appeal 2012-011143
Application 11/855,497

4
Cir. 1996). Appellants have not disputed that electrical connector
assembly comprising spring loaded clip terminals is known to persons of
ordinary skill in the art. (See Briefs generally; Pavlovic). The Examiner
found Winch discloses a system for electrically connecting modules of a
battery system, comprising a spring loaded clip type electrical bus and not
a spring loaded clip. (Ans. 5; Winch col. 4, ll. 56-68). The Examiner
correctly found that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to substitute known means of connecting a terminal bus.
(Ans. 5-6). “[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no
more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is
obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (quoting
Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
For the foregoing reasons and those presented in the Answer, we
sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-17 and 21.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17 and 21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

cam